RE: CP-->MP Issue - non-issue

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

i agree on this CCAMP has/is building a self-consistent set of mechanisms 
(from the start CCAMP considered that the MP has not being fallback 
whatsover of the CP operations and in particular not linking any of its 
operations to a particular MP) 

all what i am hearing from igor and co. is just penalizing the work of 
this group achieved since 6 years without technical justification *** 
there is no need for MP intervention in order to obtain CP operations 
resiliency/reliability *** second time we have such discussion (look back 
on the archive around end-october 2005, nov.2005 you will see there that 
the same people already pushed forward the idea of unreliable control 
plane operations - if someone's implementation is unstable/unreliable it 
is not up to CCAMP to solve such issue and certainly not by interfering 
with the MP)

ps: add also add CP GR restart (from intermediate and source node) 

-d.




"Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
25/08/2006 19:22
 
        To:     "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Farrel, 
Adrian" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
        cc:     "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Dan Li" <danli@huawei.com>, 
"Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Don Fedyk" 
<dwfedyk@nortel.com>, "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>, "Lou 
Berger" <lberger@labn.net>, "Li, Han" <lihan@chinamobile.com>, 
<owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, 
"Bryskin, Igor" <ibryskin@movaz.com>
        Subject:        RE: CP-->MP Issue - non-issue


Hi Folks,

Just a bit worried that this discussion may be causing the impression
that
control plane is somehow unstable and requires some kind of special
backup!

Deborah and other carrier representatives can attest that control plane
(although not necessarily standard GMPLS) has been deployed and in
operation
in a number of carrier networks for some years without experiencing any
major failures.  There are already methods in use for ensuring the
reliability
of the control plane such as redundant control processors, non-volatile 
storage of control plane data, software verification and testing, etc.

I don't believe it was the intention of GMPLS work to require some kind
of
fallback to central management system control, hopefully everyone agrees
on this!

Cheers,

Lyndon